carbon sequestration
Mike
CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
sequestration?
Androcles
"Mike" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7054c514-50ca-4744...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
It's not even plausible, plausuble, plauseble or plausoble.
kevirwin
> "Mike" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
That was actually funny.....clever use of vowels....don't have a clue
about the topic, however...
you might have expounded on the reason for the "implausibility"
oh no ... a cross-post....oh,well...
K e v
Uncle Al
Build wooden houses.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mike
> "Mike" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
How nice, an english teacher.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> > CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> > decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> > atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> > technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> > improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> > sequestration?
>
> Build wooden houses.
I like it but the housing market is shot to hell and they will also
decompose in short geologic time, charcoal would be more stable. I
suppose my question is at what rate could CO2 be removed using both
technologies.
kevirwin
Hey Mike, he **didn't** label you an "idiot", nor did he include the
"snip crap"....I don't think I've ever seen one of his cross-posts
that didn't have one of those identify marks...
Wow, he must like you!!!!!! I'm impressed!!!!!
K e v
Androcles
"kevirwin" <kevi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce0f0915-bd46-4e92...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
K e v
================================================
Maybe fertile soils will reproduce baby soillettes that become fertile at
puberty as they grow to be adult soils, but charcoal is essentially carbon
and unless it reacts chemically with other elements it isn't going to make
soil fertile or we'd all be growing cabbages and spuds in coal seams.
Man is a farmer, he's been experimenting with crops for millennia because
he likes to eat. You ever wonder why he doesn't grow apples in Florida
and oranges in Britain? Because it isn't plausible. Apples don't like it
hot
and oranges don't like it cold. And why all the fuss over CO2 anyway?
The biggest absorber is the green stuff that lives in water, sea levels fell
in the last couple of millennia.
Falling sea levels... whoopee, more land!
Rising sea levels... oh dear, engage panic mode! Don't buy RVs, save on
energy, turn off the air conditioner in summer, hide under a blanket all day
in winter, save the planet, the "scientists" know for us and its all caused
by a few parts per billion of CO2 in the atmosphere for which man is
responsible. Better stop breathing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wantsum_Channel
"The North Sea flood of 1953 had the effect of making the Isle of Thanet an
island again, if only for a few days."
Androcles
===================================
How mediocre, an illiterate student without a clue.
Mike
You're pushing my luck.
kevirwin
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's why I left off the cross-posted forum!!!! People do seem to get
"testy" quick in these parts (and I'm certainly not innocent in that
regard either ; although at least I am **trying** to be clever about
it, just to give the reader something entertaining -- sometimes I
"hit", sometimes I "miss"....)
I enjoy reading most of your stuff, Mike...
K e v
Mike
And I enjoy discoursing with you, Kev, but I wouldn't put it past Al
to check alt.philosophy, I think he also wants interesting discourse.
hanson
Uncle rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
Mike wrote:
I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
sequestration?
>
Build wooden houses.
>
Mike wrote:
I like it but the housing market is shot to hell and they will also
decompose in short geologic time, charcoal would be more stable.
I suppose my question is at what rate could CO2 be removed
using both technologies.
>
Basically "removing CO2" is a Green Con-Scam by the Enviros
to fatten their wallets, by YOU paying them, via their legalized
extortions from/for permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes
recycling fees, disposal charges and the carbon head tax
because you do exist. So much for the misanthropy of the
kacksacking environmental groups/- movement.
>
The Green Schits whine that the CO2 content of currently
385 ppm in the air is disastrously dangerous and invented
all kinds of convoluted dooms-day consequences.
But put it into perspective:
>
385 ppm is like your inconsequential 1st footstep in a half a
mile trip, -- or 1 penny raise to your $26.00 hourly wage, -- or
1 can out 2600 cans of beer, -- or 1 drink out of a bar with
280 pt bottles o'booze, -- 1 second out of an hour PBS TV...
yet the Green Schitz want to make you believe that the above
"environments" are catastrophically influenced by that 1 step,
1 can, 1 penny or that you will not understand the PBS Nature
show if you miss the 1st second!...
But astonishingly, hordes of little green idiots believe so,....
hook line and sinker... ahahahahaha... ahahahahaha.....
>
The Carbon burial or "sequestration" issue:
== Genetically engineering trees may be interesting if you
wanna make trees to grow now in tree-less deserts, in higher
altitudes then the current alpine tree lines, and further North
than the arctic tree limit. However the Green Schitz will complain
and rail against that, until you have paid them, in advance, your
permit charges and the graft from your contractors to them.
>
== There is no compelling incentive for trees be GE'd for more
CO2 removal. A more eco-friendly and available way is to simply
plant and grow **Kudzu** all over: Google for that, but the Green
Schitz will complain and rail against that, until you have paid them,
in advance, your permit charges and the graft from your contractors
to them.
>
== AFA your charcoal making, make no mistake it is NOT a chemistry
that goes as simple as its brutto scheme suggests:
wood, mainly cellulose = -(CH2O)x- to break into C + H2O...
The energy requirements may be the green bottleneck for the process.
But for charcoaling the wood, there is NO new technology required.
That ken has been here for millennia. It's called **dry distillation**
and produces all kinds of neat & valuable chemicals that may help
to cover the costs of burying the charcoal. BTW, you'll have to bury
charcoal deep and compressed under clay or it will oxdize back to
CO2... In any event, the Green Schitz will complain and rail against that,
until you have paid them, in advance, your permit charges
and the graft from your contractors to them.
>
== uncle rect-Als notion above is dingbatty because in most climates
wooden houses last ~30 years only without maintenance (termites etc)
And your idea of using charcoal has already been tried, 50 years ago.
Commercially, it was not attractive then. The way it was done was
to take charcoal and react it with Furfural ... (from acidic distillation of
cellulose) ... which forms thermosetting resins that can be formed into
building blocks that last 100 times longer then wood and are terrific
insulators as well as tough & strong like epoxies. Add appropriate
mineral fillers and they even become noncombustible. Or since you can
make them semiconductive, lace the surface of such a shingle-shape
form with a collector grid and you'll have a cheap PV (solar) shingle...
which is already produced somewhere.. etc, etc.. BUT the Green Schitz
have complained and railed against that, because they were not paid
in advance for the permit charges and the graft from the contractors
was not forth-coming. So it is highly unlikely that this development
will become successful and widely used.
>
Singing about all this is easy. And what is even easier to be seen is
that it is the Green-enviro Schitz that stand in the way, on every corner,
of the avenues to "Save the Earth". Enviros are only interested to fatten
their wallets with graft, and save it in their own Safe... ahahaha..
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha... ahahahaha....ahahahahanson
tad...@comcast.net
Capitalization, please!
Make that "an English teacher," or better: "a British teacher of
English."
<smirk>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
Converting biomass to charcoal requires heat, which requires a lot of
cheap energy, which currently requires burning cfossil fuels.
"...and so the serpent swallows his own tail..."
Fear not. Much agricultural reqearch has been done that show that
plants absorb and fix CO2 at rates roughly proportional to the amount
of CO2 available. A chemist would call this a first-order reaction
rate. So the higher the atmospheric CO2 levels get, the faster plants
absorb it - "negative feedback" to a climatologist.
Do not believe the hype about "positive feedbacks" dominating the
climate. It is a trivial mathematical exercise in differential
equations to show that systems that are dominated by positive feedback
in ANY dimension are inherently unstable and will precipitously "tip"
given the slightest impetus. Imagine balancing a marble on a
basketball...
If the climate were such a system, it would have tipped a few BILLION
years ago, settling in a posiiton where the dominant feedbacks are
akll negative.
The Gore-Hanson "tipping point" is a bogeyman - used to scare the
gullible into line.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
At the Jack Daniels distillery I watched the process of converting
wood into charcoal.
They build a big bonfire, light it, and then spray water on it, but
not enough to quench the fire.
Not very efficient. Most of the mass of carbon becomes CO2, but the
rest is good quality charcoal suitable for use in food processing.
In high school my chemistry teacher converted carbohydrates into
charcoal with a liberal dose of concentrated sulfuric acid, with a
byproduct of a lot of stinky fumes. Considering the actions of
volcanoes, I think SO2 would do more damage to the environment than
CO2.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
The lower we can reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, the more vulnerable
our agricuklture becomes to crop failure.
Without CO2 all our food will die.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
kevirwin
>
> - Show quoted text -
That seems pretty reasonable. Mike said you were the helpful guy over
in the science forums (i.e. - **not** one of the pompous, pedantic,
condescending know-it-alls that seem to bleed over in the cross-posts
to alt.philosophy) Hold up for a sec.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<<<voice in head: "Way to go, Kev. You probably alienated the rest of
them, even the ones that aren't elitist snobs.”>>>
Kev: “No, I think some of them have a sense of humor.”
<<<second voice: “And what makes you think that’s funny??”>>>
Kev: “Hey, good sarcasm always has an element of truth; that’s what
makes it humorous. Humor is tragic.
<<<1st voice: “So now you’re being philosophical??”>>>
Kev: “It’s a philosophy forum!!”
<<< new voice: “You’re fucking hopeless. They’re never gonna answer
anything you ask. Go ahead, ask ‘em about the space-time
contradictions or life’s beginnings. See what happens!!”>>>
Kev: “If you can’t be positive….”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
uh…..sorry…I was distracted…..So you’re saying global warming is a
myth????
Always on the look-out for knowledge,
K e v
tgde...@earthlink.net
Almost anything is a trivial exercise if you set up a strawman. What
exactly does 'dominated' by positive feedback mean, and who used the
term?
As far as I know, there are some perfectly reasonable positive
feedback mechanisms suggested in the climate debate, like permafrost
melt releasing methane and reduced albedo as the result of melting
ice.
>Imagine balancing a marble on a
> basketball...
>
> If the climate were such a system,
There is no such claim, period. If you seriously think someone is
making this argument, you simply don't understand systems.
-tg
Androcles
===============================================
Sea levels have fallen in the last 2000 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/articles/2006/05/15/thanet_history_feature.shtml
Global warming is a myth.
Mike
I am trying to avoid a climate change debate and am more intested in
methods of climate control. I suspected the conversion to charcoal
would require an energy expenditure and wondered how much, Eprida
seems to be trying to sell franchises. But I am more curious about
GE'd trees particularly since that is an option the current
administration is looking at along with seeding pollution in the upper
atmosphere. Anybody have an idea of how much the respiration of trees
can be increased?
Androcles
Anybody have an idea of how much the respiration of trees
can be increased?
Sure, I have a really good idea, it will increase respiration very easily,
doesn't need genetic engineering and so simple anyone can do it.
Drum roll and trumpet fanfare please for the greatest idea before
sliced bread :
Grow more trees.
TA - DA!
BTW, more new trees need more CO2. Burn more coal. When you
run out of coal, burn the extra trees.
'New ideas pass through three periods:
. It can't be done.
. It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing.
. I knew it was a good idea all along.' - Arthur C. Clarke
tgde...@earthlink.net
If you want to sequester more carbon per tree, you have to have bigger
(faster growing) trees *with the same density". You run into all
kinds of problems trying to do that---'respiration rate' is not going
to solve anything. The most obvious question is where you get all the
water that will be involved---same issue as 'green revolution' crops.
-tg
-tg
Mike
The most obvious answer is rain. Reducing the canopy allows faster
growth and I've seen Radiata Pine from New Zealand that had a full
inch or more between growth rings. Apparently it is feasable to GE
trees to increase their absorbtion of CO2 but I have no idea of how
this can be done.
tgde...@earthlink.net
So, Australia has all these plantations of these trees as I understand
it. Your solution is that Australia should increase its rainfall? Good
luck.
I think you are applying magical thinking to this idea of genetic
engineering. Trees make wood, and you are talking about trees making
something else---'high-carbon cellulose' I guess. Suggestions for GM
algae to produce diesel fuel are a lot more realistic.
-tg
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>Anybody have an idea of how much the respiration of trees
>can be increased?
Forest systems have been studied since George Woodwell and Richard
Houghton set up fancy gas-monitoring equipment in a Brookhaven forest
in the 1960's. Look up the idea of the temperature coefficient Q10
(rate of respiration change from a 10C increase.) Get familiar with
Max Kleiber's 1932 additions to Max Rubner's 1880 estimates of basal
metabolic rate (BMR), to start.
The basic idea of Q10 is:
BMR(c) = BMR*10^{[(Tc-Tb)/10]*log10(Q10)}
That equation tells you exactly what the factor Q10 is designed for.
There is also the idea of universal temperature dependence, UTD. See,
"Effects of Size and Temperature on Metabolic Rate," James F.
Gillooly, James H. Brown, Geoffrey B. West, Van M. Savage, and Eric L.
Charnov, Science 21 September 2001: Vol. 293. no. 5538, pp. 2248 -
2251, DOI: 10.1126/science.1061967.
I assume you are already familiar with the terms, photosynthesis,
Krebs cycle and Calvin cycle.
One of the insights you might consider thinking about is that plant
respiration operates in two directions -- inhaling and exhaling carbon
differently, night and day. Night-time, plants consume oxygen and
produce CO2. Most day times, the reverse. Respiration, not just the
daily cycles but also over an entire annual cycle, includes both the
inhalation and exhalation of CO2 by plants. Animals, obviously, don't
inhale CO2 at all and only produce it. The net effect of all this
that on the order of decades, if anthropogenic effects were removed,
the concentrations of CO2 would remain fairly stable. Human impacts
are adding a baseline slope to that net, yielding the rise we see now.
The magnitude of respiration by plants and animals is very important
to consider. From memory, it's on the order of 100 gigatons of carbon
per year. Overall, green plants inhale about that much carbon out of
the atmosphere. Also, broadly speaking, these same green plants plus
all of the other life on Earth including animals, plus oxidation of
organic matter in soils, exhale that much carbon, as well. Since the
entire atmosphere has something on the order of 750 gigatons, the
rough idea is that about every 7 or 8 years the entire atmosphere's
CO2 passes in and out of the biosphere. Life never rests.
However, photosynthesis isn't much affected by temperature or CO2
concentrations. It is far more impacted by light and the availability
of nutrients and water. And perhaps at the bottom of the top dozen
factors comes atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But respiration _is_
affected by temperature. In fact, that's a principle factor.
As Dr. Woodwell once said, "Respiration is affected by temperature,
temperature, and by temperature!"
I remember reading that about 1500 gigatons of carbon are locked up in
organic matter in soil and another 500 gigatons in everything living
and dead not yet in the soils. This excludes dissolved CO2 in the
ocean and calcium carbonate shells. That's about 2000 gigatons.
A concern arrives from recognizing that respiration depends on
temperature while photosynthesis largely does not and from the sheer
magnitude of the annual inhalation and exhalation amounts. As
respiration increases when temperatures rise and photosynthesis
remains largely unimpacted, then because of the sheer magnitudes
involved even a small shift in the net respiration balance of carbon
inhalation verses exhalation could itself contribute a lot of carbon.
The question is, which way does the balance shift as respiration
increases and temperatures rise? And especially how does all this go
in the interim (decade periods) as things are changing? Woodwell
suggested an answer, writing, "When respiration outstrips
photosynthesis, plants and other organisms cease growth and ultimately
die."
Putting all this into perspective, this might already be on the order
of a gigaton/year shift, on its own. I've seen that suggestion. With
fossil fuels on the order of 5 gigatons/year and deforestation on the
order of 2 gigatons/year, ocean uptake on the order of -2.5 gigatons
per year, it's not hard to gather why we are seeing a rise of about 6
gigatons per year in the atmosphere's carbon and why respiration is
such an important area of study.
I don't have an answer for you. Just some thoughts to consider as you
read about it.
Jon
Mike
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
Thank-you Jon, that was helpful. And I would also like to thank tg,
tadchem, and hanson for their input. I wasn't sure about how trees can
be genetically engineered but it seems it's simply an attempt to
produce faster growing trees. And that's probably what the radiata I
mention was, which was brittle and produced inferior lumber.
JimboCat
> "kevirwin" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ce0f0915-bd46-4e92...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 8:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7054c514-50ca-4744...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> > > CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> > > decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> > > atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> > > technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> > > improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> > > sequestration?
>
> > It's not even plausible, plausuble, plauseble or plausoble.
>
> That was actually funny.....clever use of vowels....don't have a clue
> about the topic, however...
>
> you might have expounded on the reason for the "implausibility"
>
> oh no ... a cross-post....oh,well...
>
> K e v
>
> ================================================
> Maybe fertile soils will reproduce baby soillettes that become fertile at
> puberty as they grow to be adult soils, but charcoal is essentially carbon
> and unless it reacts chemically with other elements it isn't going to make
> soil fertile or we'd all be growing cabbages and spuds in coal seams.
> Man is a farmer, he's been experimenting with crops for millennia because
> he likes to eat.
"Terra preta (“dark earth” in Portuguese) refers to expanses of very
dark, fertile anthropogenic soils found in the Amazon Basin. It owes
its name to its very high charcoal content." - Wikipedia
These areas of human-produced soils are pretty much the only places in
the Amazon where you can actually grow crops in the usual sense. They
are very fertile indeed. Amazingly, we still don't seem to know how to
make such soils in the Amazon today (they're working on it). Charcoal
is very definitely a key part, though.
I'd call it plausible.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path
leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total
extinction.
Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. - Woody Allen
Mike
Btw there is also concern that if such trees reproduced in the "wild"
they would outcompete "native" species and reduce genetic diversity so
work is being done on making them sterile.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
Any time we humans start tinkering on a significant scale, we do so at
great peril. For example, it's not just the competition alone that
may be a problem. That much we can easily see. But it may also be
that certain enzymes (-ases) may snip the modifications we make and
insert them elsewhere, with little understood impact. Or they may be
subject to mutation and selection, again without knowing where or when
or to what impact. Natural systems have had a LONG TIME by which to
stabilize and express their impacts. Human modifications will have
had almost no time at all, and if applied on a grand scale, will
definitely have their impacts, projected and "not projected and yet to
be discovered later on."
The idea of spraying a mist of H2SO4 in the stratosphere, a few
decades ago, was proposed as a remediation for human caused global
warming -- it would help reflect sunlight back into space. However,
that too would have both projected and possibly worrisome impacts.
Piling risky modifications to the environment upon other risky
modifications to the environment is pretty much the way that humans
seem to like doing things. Rather than the safer and better
understood thing, which obviously is to just try and impact the
environment less and allow it to operate as it has for some time, so
well for us.
Jon
Mike
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:29:40 -0700 (PDT), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >Btw there is also concern that if such trees reproduced in the "wild"
> >they would outcompete "native" species and reduce genetic diversity so
> >work is being done on making them sterile.
>
> Any time we humans start tinkering on a significant scale, we do so at
> great peril. For example, it's not just the competition alone that
> may be a problem. That much we can easily see. But it may also be
> that certain enzymes (-ases) may snip the modifications we make and
> insert them elsewhere, with little understood impact. Or they may be
> subject to mutation and selection, again without knowing where or when
> or to what impact. Natural systems have had a LONG TIME by which to
> stabilize and express their impacts. Human modifications will have
> had almost no time at all, and if applied on a grand scale, will
> definitely have their impacts, projected and "not projected and yet to
> be discovered later on."
>
> The idea of spraying a mist of H2SO4 in the stratosphere, a few
> decades ago, was proposed as a remediation for human caused global
> warming -- it would help reflect sunlight back into space. However,
> that too would have both projected and possibly worrisome impacts.
>
> Piling risky modifications to the environment upon other risky
> modifications to the environment is pretty much the way that humans
> seem to like doing things. Rather than the safer and better
> understood thing, which obviously is to just try and impact the
> environment less and allow it to operate as it has for some time, so
> well for us.
The obvious solution is get rid of people but I think we should also
look at other ways of mediating our impact. Conservation and more
efficient use of our resources will help but we still have impacts,
known and unknown. It would make sense to put air scrubbers on coal
plants but how do you get everybody to do it? I think trying to
discover what we don't know and using what we do know can help
counteract these impacts. However the idea of spraying hydrogen
sulfate into the stratosphere scares the hell out of me, I like blue
sky.
Androcles
"JimboCat" <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:21d6b17e-bd47-42a2...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
More fish swim in the sea than in garden ponds. Amazingly, we still don't
seem to know how to make such brine in the Atlantic today. Salt is very
definitely a key part, though. You'd call that plausible.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 10:17�am, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
hehe. Yes, but. Probably, a good number to try reaching would be in
the one to two billion and keep it there. But how? You can't even
bring up the subject without all manner of nuts entering into the
discussion, let alone realizing that our science isn't yet up to
answering that question even if it could be asked without all the
political and philosophical questions running amok.
>I think we should also
>look at other ways of mediating our impact.
Yes.
>Conservation and more
>efficient use of our resources will help
They are linear, by and large. Population increases remain
exponential. The world has tripled in numbers since I was born. And
I'll see that grow before I die. Any linear changes due to
conservation will be overwhelmed by the exponential growth in short
order.
>but we still have impacts,
>known and unknown. It would make sense to put air scrubbers on coal
>plants but how do you get everybody to do it? I think trying to
>discover what we don't know and using what we do know can help
>counteract these impacts. However the idea of spraying hydrogen
>sulfate
Sulfuric acid, commonly called.
>into the stratosphere scares the hell out of me, I like blue
>sky.
Yeah. It scared a lot of people.
Jon
Mike
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
Probably it's purpose, it always seems to come back to people. And the
only solution (other than unilateral) I can see is education. But any
attempt to impove the living standards of undeveloped countries (which
have the population increases) seems doomed since it would require
increased consumption.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 12:33�pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
Yes, and sadly when it only costs more and more as the population
continues to bloom and the pressure against resources just for
survival and slight comforts continue to increase. Labor becomes
worth less and less, raw resources more and more, and eventually the
cost it takes to merely keep someone alive crosses over the value
added to others that they can contribute by surviving. When and where
that crossover takes place, free market will certainly fail them and
leave them to their conclusion as a "worthless part" of society. We
already see some of that in the US.
Also, good education is hard to come by and very expensive -- which
translates back into energy requirements one way or another
(supporting people take energy, food takes energy, schools take
energy, infrastructure takes energy, etc.)
The omens aren't so good.
>But any
>attempt to impove the living standards of undeveloped countries (which
>have the population increases) seems doomed since it would require
>increased consumption.
That, too.
Jon
tad...@comcast.net
How much do you think the greenies will approve of the slash-and-burn
agriculture that produced this 'carbon sequestration?'
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
That's what the voices in MY head tell me...
> Always on the look-out for knowledge,
Duck! Here comes some more!!
> K e v- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
It means that the *net* feedback is positive, i.e. a perturbation of
one variable leads to effects that AMPLIFY the perturbation of that
same variable.
> and who used the
> term?
The IPCC's own computer climate models all are designed with a
positive feedback between CO2 and water vapoer.
> As far as I know, there are some perfectly reasonable positive
> feedback mechanisms suggested in the climate debate, like permafrost
> melt releasing methane and reduced albedo as the result of melting
> ice.
There may be some such mechanisms operating, but they do not
dominate. For example, if the melting of permafrost involved to a
positive feedback mechanism, the slightest melting of ANY permafrost
would result in a chain reaction (you've presumably heard of those,
haven't you?) that would lead to a 'runaway' melting of ALL the
permafrost. Without a more powerful negative feedback mechanism,
there would be nothing to stop it. But still, in spite of known
melting of some areas of permafrost, there is still permafrost in the
world.
> >Imagine balancing a marble on a
> > basketball...
>
> > If the climate were such a system,
>
> There is no such claim, period. If you seriously think someone is
> making this argument, you simply don't understand systems.
I am not asserting that anyone made such a claim. I myself am using a
physical analogy to issustrate the operation of positive feedback.
The fact is that the concept of a "tipping point" (Archbishop Al
Gore's own term) requires such a mechanism.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
If you are really convinced that the climate is going to change, a
more economical use of your resources would be to develop methods to
ADAPT to the change.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
No GE needed. If you want a tree to sequester more CO2, FEED IT!
"Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a
300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately
30%. "
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-48XKRGD-4M&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0383ebf6ab3c0c648488601425d254dd
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Mike
Yes, adaptation is necessary but the question remains; what to keep
and what to change? We are capable of affecting our enviornment.
Mike
> No GE needed. If you want a tree to sequester more CO2, FEED IT!
>
> "Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a
> 300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
> (CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately
Apparently temperature and sunlight also increases it but this is
still relatively short term solution unless it is converted to a more
stable form. This mechanism of increased absorption may have moderated
previous climate change but our population increase has reduced areas
of vegetation.
Benj
Hanson you dumb quack! Don't you understand it's "positive feedback"
that puts us all in trouble. Of course climatologists and physicists
wouldn't know positive feedback if it was shoved up their asses, but
the salient feature is that it's amazingly unstable. If the lefties
are right we can expect the earth to look like Mars before Obama is
out of office.
But happily none of the scammers actually have a clue what "positive
feedback" is so my guess is that the only thing likely to end up a
barren wasteland is our wallets...
Benj
> I think you are applying magical thinking to this idea of genetic
> engineering. Trees make wood, and you are talking about trees making
> something else---'high-carbon cellulose' I guess. Suggestions for GM
> algae to produce diesel fuel are a lot more realistic.
You just don't understand magic. If we all wish very very hard with
all our might to be saved from global warming or for trees to grow in
the desert, they will. Wicca and her sister Physics guarantee it!
Benj
> In high school my chemistry teacher converted carbohydrates into
> charcoal with a liberal dose of concentrated sulfuric acid, with a
> byproduct of a lot of stinky fumes. Considering the actions of
> volcanoes, I think SO2 would do more damage to the environment than
> CO2.
Your high school chemistry teacher was smarter than Algore and all the
IPCC scientists, for sure. Look. All one needs to do solve the problem
of "carbon sequestration" is to invent the technology to convert all
our captured CO2 into Alkanes, CycloAlkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons.
You then pump that sludge into the ground et VOILA! CO2
footprint prolems solves as well as energy problems for future
generations.
I can't believe what idiots you greenies are!
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:83fd2805-6fdb-4289...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
You haven't been around for very long, have you?
Allow me to point out grand idiocy:
http://tinyurl.com/dj8dxz
http://tinyurl.com/canw5l
http://tinyurl.com/cverlu
http://tinyurl.com/dymh6c
http://tinyurl.com/dgy6v4
Greenies are only mildly idiotic by comparison.
tgde...@earthlink.net
> 1,600,000 hits
>
> > As far as I know, there are some perfectly reasonable positive
> > feedback mechanisms suggested in the climate debate, like permafrost
> > melt releasing methane and reduced albedo as the result of melting
> > ice.
>
> There may be some such mechanisms operating, but they do not
> dominate. For example, if the melting of permafrost involved to a
> positive feedback mechanism, the slightest melting of ANY permafrost
> would result in a chain reaction (you've presumably heard of those,
> haven't you?) that would lead to a 'runaway' melting of ALL the
> permafrost. Without a more powerful negative feedback mechanism,
> there would be nothing to stop it. But still, in spite of known
> melting of some areas of permafrost, there is still permafrost in the
> world.
>
> > >Imagine balancing a marble on a
> > > basketball...
>
> > > If the climate were such a system,
>
> > There is no such claim, period. If you seriously think someone is
> > making this argument, you simply don't understand systems.
>
> I am not asserting that anyone made such a claim. I myself am using a
> physical analogy to issustrate the operation of positive feedback.
> The fact is that the concept of a "tipping point" (Archbishop Al
> Gore's own term) requires such a mechanism.
That's simply wrong---you appear to be confusing or conflating
concepts all over the place.
A tipping point means that there has been an irreversible change of
state. This can certainly occur without positive feedback---just push
a glass towards the edge of a table with your finger.
You are also wrong in your representation of positive feedback;
systems have inertia and friction (damping), so your claim that all
the permafrost should have melted because some of the permafrost has
melted is just silly. It isn't the fact that the perturbation
amplifies itself that matters, it is *how much*.
The effect of methane release could speed up the melting by one
percent in 10,000 years, and still be positive feedback.
I would also be interested in how you justify connecting your
balancing balls analogy to positive feedback. Aren't you thinking of
something like 'under-damped system'?
-tg
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
danger...@gmail.com
> more economical use of your resources would be to develop methods to
> ADAPT to the change.
I'm working on a method to keep beer from going skunky when stored at
high temp.
DB
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > All one needs to do solve the problem
> > of "carbon sequestration" is to invent the technology to convert all
> > our captured CO2 into Alkanes, CycloAlkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons.
> > You then pump that sludge into the ground et VOILA! CO2
> > footprint prolems solves as well as energy problems for future
> > generations.
>
> > I can't believe what idiots you greenies are!
>
> You haven't been around for very long, have you?
>
> Allow me to point out grand idiocy:
What can I say, Andro?
Slavery. Gets shit done!
Benj
> I'm working on a method to keep beer from going skunky when stored at
> high temp.
Now THAT is an AGW tax I can support!
kevirwin
Kev (to voices): "See, I told you some of them had a sense of
humor!!!!"
Shrill voice: "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in
awhile!!"
Kev: "There's just no satisfying you guys. No wonder I'm so
pessimistic".
until next cross-post,
K e v
Giga
<tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1501340a-75e0-47ed...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
= I imagine the positive feedback would only kick in when areas, or depths,
or frost not normally being thawed are effected.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<danger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8bd337f-6488-404d...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I had a case of Moosehead at room temp for more than two years.
Just got to keep from shaking it, and keep it in the dark.
David A. Smith
hanson
>
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message ...
All one needs to do solve the problem of "carbon sequestration"
is to invent the technology to convert all our captured CO2 into
Alkanes, CycloAlkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons.
You then pump that sludge into the ground et VOILA! CO2
footprint prolems solves as well as energy problems for future
>
hanson wrote:
.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahaha...
I have seen'em come and I have seen'em go. But you take
the cake, Jacoby.... AHAHAHAHAHA... That is a keeper!
I know that you are sarcastic, but greenies and a whole
slew of attendant posters apparently have not gotten it.
>
BTW, Ben, there is a serious socio-economic theory with
that theme. (forgot the name). It says that mankind would be
served best if we were to produce just the barest minimum
of food, clothing and shelter and then, to ward off boredom,
and social discontent we should form kibbutzim/communes
and start to dig large and deep holes into the ground. ----....
When done we'd admire our excavation work and then fill
the holes up again. ----....
After careful filling & leveling the surface & adoring it, ---....
we will start with the digging process again, & again & again.
>
The immoral side of the story: The green shirted enviros are
already wilting and are beginning to turn into brown shirts....
We have been there before. The greenies back then provided
fertile ground for the browning of a nation... How fast we forget.
>:
Thanks for the laughs, though, Ben.... ahahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
I am trying to avoid a climate change debate and am more intested in
methods of climate control.
>
If you are really convinced that the climate is going to change, a
more economical use of your resources would be to develop
methods to ADAPT to the change.
"Mike" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes, adaptation is necessary but the question remains;
(1) what to keep and what to change?
(2) We are capable of affecting our enviornment.
>
hanson wrote:
(1) We do NOT know. ----- (2) Yes we are & do!
(1 &2 ) All we are constructed for, like ANY other life form,
is to change our environment, while being changed by
said environment. No-one knows, why?.. All the answers
the green Schitz, the polititians and the priest came & come
up with are bad music, silly poetry and sillier dances which
did/do bring NO deeper insight at all.
All we know is that we are commanded to follow chemical
commands that say: Consume and Procreate... with the
useless freedom for the fools to self-anoint themselves and
swear that there is a higher purpose.... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha....ahahahanson
Androcles
Yeah, those poor camels...
Wassup, didn't you like the idiotic St. Pete's basilica
or the idiotic goddess of "liberty"?
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
and I'll send 'em back over the Mexican border!
tad...@comcast.net
> ------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----
>
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message ...
One more laugh for youm hanson...
I have on my desk a cartoon showing two cavemen sitting in a cave and
wearing anuimal skins.
One comments to the other: "Something's not right - our air is clean,
our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is
organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty."
<cartoon was found on cartoonbank.com>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Michael Gordge
> I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
Why would ewe like that, idiot?
MG
tgde...@earthlink.net
Reduce the population through reduced reproduction. Then, if ACC is a
real phenomenon, you have eliminated it. If there is going to be a
change that is *not* anthropogenic, then it becomes a simple matter to
find optimal habitation for the species.
I would suggest as a first approximation 300 million humans. There
would certainly be comfortable places for them to live if the climate
stays within the range the planet has experienced in the past say
billion years, which is almost 100% likely. (I can't solve it if the
sun explodes or something like that.)
-tg
Santim Vah
> On Apr 30, 9:01 am, Mike <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > "Mike" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Uncle rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> > > decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> > > atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> > > technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> > > improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> > > sequestration?
>
>
> > > Build wooden houses.
>
> > > Mike wrote:
>
> > > I like it but the housing market is shot to hell and they will also
> > > decompose in short geologic time, charcoal would be more stable.
> > > I suppose my question is at what rate could CO2 be removed
> > > using both technologies.
>
> > > hanson worte
> > > Basically "removing CO2" is a Green Con-Scam by the Enviros
> > > to fatten their wallets, by YOU paying them, via their legalized
> > > extortions from/for permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes
> > > recycling fees, disposal charges and the carbon head tax
> > > because you do exist. So much for the misanthropy of the
> > > kacksacking environmental groups/- movement.
>
> > > 385 ppm in the air is disastrously dangerous and invented
> > > all kinds of convoluted dooms-day consequences.
> > > But put it into perspective:
>
> > > 385 ppm is like your inconsequential 1st footstep in a half a
> > > mile trip, -- or 1 penny raise to your $26.00 hourly wage, -- or
> > > 1 can out 2600 cans of beer, -- or 1 drink out of a bar with
> > > 280 pt bottles o'booze, -- 1 second out of an hour PBS TV...
> > > yet the Green Schitz want to make you believe that the above
> > > "environments" are catastrophically influenced by that 1 step,
> > > 1 can, 1 penny or that you will not understand the PBS Nature
> > > show if you miss the 1st second!...
> > > But astonishingly, hordes of little green idiots believe so,....
> > > hook line and sinker... ahahahahaha... ahahahahaha.....
>
> > would require an energy expenditure and wondered how much, Eprida
> > seems to be trying to sell franchises. But I am more curious about
> > GE'd trees particularly since that is an option the current
> > administration is looking at along with seeding pollution in the upper
> > atmosphere. Anybody have an idea of how much the respiration of trees
> > can be increased?
>
> If you want to sequester more carbon per tree, you have to have bigger
> (faster growing) trees *with the same density". You run into all
> kinds of problems trying to do that---'respiration rate' is not going
> to solve anything. The most obvious question is where you get all the
> water that will be involved---same issue as 'green revolution' crops.
>
>
> -tg
side line .....
recently saw short doco/news issue here in Oz .... one particular type
of sugar cane that is in use [ makes sugar same as others, and no
shortcomings ] has ability to LOCK up carbon into the SOIL
cummulatively, without any loss of soil productivity for next seasons
sugar cane planting.
amount of carbon sequestration was higher/faster per annum than all
any all BEST tree abilities. Farmers here as part of carbon trading
system debates had asked for agri credits, but have been excluded from
the system.
all that was needed was to decision for all cane farmers [ quite a big
business here ] to switch to the other variety over time .... a win-
win ... but alas no action as yet. above is from my memory,
some links
http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/07/fao-introduces-new-global-soil-database.html
http://www.plantstone.com.au/
Meanwhile farmers say that costs will rise from carbon trading, for
example fertiliser, fuel and steel while beef producer Trevor Wilson,
from the New South Wales North Coast, says:
scientists have figured his farm captures more carbon than he emits.
“(In) my pasture grazing system, which is a managed rotation, I have
sequestered enough carbon in the last six years to cover my carbon
emissions from my cows for 125 years.”
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/03/12/sorting-out-soil-carbon/
and
Two New South Wales scientists believe they may have discovered the
key to a simple model for measuring carbon sequestration. University
of Southern Cross soil scientist Leigh Sullivan and paeleobotanist
Jeff Parr have been investigating the role of phytoliths or
plantstones in grass crops such as sugar cane. Each leaf contains
millions of the microscopic phytoliths as part of the plant's immune
system, and these store inert carbon for thousands of years.
DR LEIGH SULLIVAN, SOIL SCIENTIST: The sugar cane that we've been
looking at today can increase plantstone carbon, CO2 reductions by 40
times greater than just normal vegetation, and what this means is that
agriculture can have a major role in the whole fight against global
warming.
SEAN MURPHY: Using an electron microscope capable of magnifying up to
80,000 times, Dr Sullivan has been able to identify the quartz-like
silica plantstones in a range of commercial crops such as this sorghum
from Tamworth.
DR LEIGH SULLIVAN: These are phytoliths, there's a group of three
phytoliths here. They're very closely locked together. These would
have been on the outside of a plant leaf, protecting the leaf from
fungal invasion or midge attack. But as far as we're concerned, the
carbon that's tied up into these phytoliths is locked away from
decomposition, it's locked away from being returned to the atmosphere.
SEAN MURPHY: Dr Jeff Parr made the initial discovery on a field trip
to Papua New Guinea.
DR JEFF PARR, PALEOBOTANIST: And we were looking at soil or sediment
profiles over the last 8,000 years and we're actually radiocarbon
dating the plantstones themselves down the profile to get a handle on
what the age of the profile was and what vegetation was there at that
particular time.
SEAN MURPHY: Almost by accident he discovered plantstones containing
carbon which had been securely stored in soil sediments for thousands
of years.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2176108.htm
blah blah blah ...... so many things can solve the CO2 issue, it's not
hard to do .... it's just a "choice" and continued research and
ACTION.
Lot's of little simple things done everywhere and everyday ... and
bingo ...
Uncle Al
Hop alpha-acid humulone isomerizes during wort boiling to
isohumulone. That rapidly reacts with riboflavin and protein cystine
residues in light (bright fluorescent will do it; sunlight is death)
to form 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol, or skunked beer.
Keep your beer in brown (not green and certainly not clear) bottles
and out of light. If you produce really fowl brew, add some citrus
juice then have somebody else drink it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hanson
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2cddcb9a-8edf-450f...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:01 am, Mike <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I am trying to avoid a climate change debate and am more
> > > intested in methods of climate control.
>
> On Apr 30, 2:00 pm, "tadc...@comcast.net" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If you are really convinced that the climate is going to change,
> > a more economical use of your resources would be to develop
> > methods to ADAPT to the change.
>
> Yes, adaptation is necessary but the question remains; what
> to keep and what to change? We are capable of affecting our
> enviornment.
>
Reduce the population through reduced reproduction.
Then, if ACC is a real phenomenon, you have eliminated it.
>
That's DOA, Denning, unless you take the lead & castrate yourself,
(before you produced offspring), and then find hordes of eager
enthusiasts to follow your example. Post your procedure on Youtube.
The misanthropic Green Schitz will give you an enviro medal for
you having "eliminated it", .. meaning ACC = All Cocks Cumming.
>
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
If there is going to be a change that is *not* anthropogenic, then it
becomes a simple matter to find optimal habitation for the species.
>
Fuck that "species" shit. Buy or make larger furnaces or air-
conditioners. Be done with green whining and enjoy life.
>
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I would suggest as a first approximation 300 million humans. There
would certainly be comfortable places for them to live if the climate
stays within the range the planet has experienced in the past say
billion years, which is almost 100% likely.
>
You sing like all class 3 enviros, those little green idiots. do, in their
pan-genocidal enviro fanaticism. You just implied that you wish
death upon 6 Billion M-W & Children. Hitler was a nice guy, when
compared to you and you green ilk.hanson wrote:
Your enviro megalomania is truly impressive!... ahahahaha....
You must be the right hand twit of Gaja, the Great Green Whore.
Thanks for laughs, though... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
BradGuth
> I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> sequestration?
It's just another short-term recycle, because neither is going deep
enough for long-term safe keeping.
CO2 by itself is actually not the ultimate bad guy here. Sooty co2
that's laced with other elements is however downright nasty.
Converting CO2 into a solid (aka dry ice), or incorporated into other
solids that are never going to become otherwise utilized is also
technically doable. Converting CO2 into a viable fuel for creating
thermal energy is perhaps the best idea. An arc-jet thruster or
thermal dynamic engine burns CO2 rather nicely.
~ BG
hanson
Santim, you have posted some very interesting stuff, wherein
the operative sentence says:
::SV:: Farmers here, in NSW, AU, as part of carbon trading
::SV:: system debates had asked for agri credits, but have
::SV:: been excluded from the system.
>
So much for the real intent of the Green Schitz. You the hard
working, well meaning worker must take all the risks & carry
all the burden, while the administrators of the Carbon trading
scam fatten their own wallets. The Green movement is more
corrupt than their cousins, the Browns and the Reds, ever were.
This C-trading scheme was tried in California in the early 90's.
A wholes slews of these CT-administrators are still in jail after
stealing for personal use 100's of $ millions out of the system.
----- There is nothing more filthy then an environmentalist! -------
>
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
>------- whole original tripe here ----------
> > I am trying to avoid a climate change debate and am more intested in
> > methods of climate control. I suspected the conversion to charcoal
> > would require an energy expenditure and wondered how much, Eprida
> > seems to be trying to sell franchises. But I am more curious about
> > GE'd trees particularly since that is an option the current
> > administration is looking at along with seeding pollution in the upper
> > atmosphere. Anybody have an idea of how much the respiration of trees
> > can be increased?
>
> If you want to sequester more carbon per tree, you have to have bigger
> (faster growing) trees *with the same density". You run into all
> kinds of problems trying to do that---'respiration rate' is not going
> to solve anything. The most obvious question is where you get all the
> water that will be involved---same issue as 'green revolution' crops.
>
recently saw short doco/news issue here in Oz .... one particular type
of sugar cane that is in use [ makes sugar same as others, and no
shortcomings ] has ability to LOCK up carbon into the SOIL
cummulatively, without any loss of soil productivity for next seasons
sugar cane planting.
amount of carbon sequestration was higher/faster per annum than all
any all BEST tree abilities. Farmers here as part of carbon trading
system debates had asked for agri credits, but have been excluded from
the system.
all that was needed was to decision for all cane farmers [ quite a big
business here ] to switch to the other variety over time .... a win-
win ... but alas no action as yet. above is from my memory,
some links
http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/07/fao-introduces-new-global-soil-database.html
http://www.plantstone.com.au/
Meanwhile farmers say that costs will rise from carbon trading, for
example fertiliser, fuel and steel while beef producer Trevor Wilson,
from the New South Wales North Coast, says:
scientists have figured his farm captures more carbon than he emits.
�(In) my pasture grazing system, which is a managed rotation, I have
sequestered enough carbon in the last six years to cover my carbon
emissions from my cows for 125 years.�
hanson
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip crap] except...
:: Brad says:: Converting CO2 into a viable fuel for creating
:: Brad says:: thermal energy is perhaps the best idea.
:: Brad says:: An arc-jet thruster or thermal dynamic engine
:: Brad says:: burns CO2 rather nicely.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahahaha... Why don't you tell now everybody that you have
invented the Brad Guth type Perpetuum Mobile by burning CO2.
... Sell stock in your venture real quick, before they wise up to
you, get the man, lock you up and throw the key away...
Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Puppet_Sock
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
[snip]
> = I imagine the positive feedback would only kick in when areas, or depths,
> or frost not normally being thawed are effected.
When I dream, I have a pony.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> dangerousb...@gmail.com wrote:
[snips]
> > I'm working on a method to keep beer from going skunky when stored at
> > high temp.
>
> Hop alpha-acid humulone isomerizes during wort boiling to
> isohumulone. That rapidly reacts with riboflavin and protein cystine
> residues in light (bright fluorescent will do it; sunlight is death)
> to form 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol, or skunked beer.
>
> Keep your beer in brown (not green and certainly not clear) bottles
> and out of light. If you produce really fowl brew, add some citrus
> juice then have somebody else drink it.
Oh geeze. Now I'm not sure whether I want to drink
Uncle Al's home brew or not.
Socks
tad...@comcast.net
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> = I imagine the positive feedback would only kick in when areas, or depths,
> or frost not normally being thawed are effected.
The positive feedback referred to in the IPCC "models" is present at
all times, involving only IR energy, atmospheric CO2, temperature, and
water vapor. The fantasy is that a small increase in CO2 increases
the temperature a little bit, ehich raises the humidity, which makes
the atmosphere more efficient at absorbing IR, resulting in a sort of
synergism that magnoifies the "climate sensitivity" so that the
atmosphere warms about 2.5 times as much as it would from the CO2
increase alone.
The reality is that there are a myriad of other factors not accounted
for. The atmosphere is a complex system and we are not even sure
*what* all the variables are, let alone how to account for their
innate variations or all the millions of possible interactions.
We *can* point out that the earth is still here and habitable, so the
scenario of "runaway" global warming (to use Al Gore's term) has not
occurred. Had it been possible, it would have occurred by now because
mankind has not added any significant *new* variables or
interactions. We have only tweaked a pre-existing system a little bit
by adding a little to the "greenhouse effect" - increasing the
absorbtivity and specific heat of the atmosphere insignificantly.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tad...@comcast.net
If citrus beer scares you, then DON'T look at this:
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=24053467
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tgde...@earthlink.net
> On May 1, 12:33 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
>
> ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> > = I imagine the positive feedback would only kick in when areas, or depths,
> > or frost not normally being thawed are effected.
>
> The positive feedback referred to in the IPCC "models" is present at
> all times, involving only IR energy, atmospheric CO2, temperature, and
> water vapor. The fantasy is that a small increase in CO2 increases
> the temperature a little bit, ehich raises the humidity, which makes
> the atmosphere more efficient at absorbing IR, resulting in a sort of
> synergism that magnoifies the "climate sensitivity" so that the
> atmosphere warms about 2.5 times as much as it would from the CO2
> increase alone.
>
> The reality is that there are a myriad of other factors not accounted
> for. The atmosphere is a complex system and we are not even sure
> *what* all the variables are, let alone how to account for their
> innate variations or all the millions of possible interactions.
>
> We *can* point out that the earth is still here and habitable, so the
> scenario of "runaway" global warming (to use Al Gore's term) has not
> occurred.
As I pointed out in the post to which you have not replied, you
obviously don't understand systems---or you are purposely creating a
strawman.
> Had it been possible, it would have occurred by now because
> mankind has not added any significant *new* variables or
> interactions.
That's just silly. We have obviously added a major new variable, which
is that we are burning fossil fuels. You don't think that taking
hydrocarbons out of the ground and putting them into the atmosphere is
a new interaction, given that the natural process has been *dominated*
by exactly the opposite for hundreds of millions of years?
-tg
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > What can I say, Andro?
> > Slavery. Gets shit done!
> Yeah, those poor camels...
> Wassup, didn't you like the idiotic St. Pete's basilica
> or the idiotic goddess of "liberty"?
Hey any place with curlicue columns can't be all bad!
Anyway I liked the styrofoam "goddess of Liberty" the students in
Tienanmen Square made better.
Mike
>
> side line .....
>
> recently saw short doco/news issue here in Oz .... one particular type
> of sugar cane that is in use [ makes sugar same as others, and no
> shortcomings ] has ability to LOCK up carbon into the SOIL
> cummulatively, without any loss of soil productivity for next seasons
> sugar cane planting.
>
> amount of carbon sequestration was higher/faster per annum than all
> any all BEST tree abilities. Farmers here as part of carbon trading
> system debates had asked for agri credits, but have been excluded from
> the system.
>
> all that was needed was to decision for all cane farmers [ quite a big
> business here ] to switch to the other variety over time .... a win-
> win ... but alas no action as yet. above is from my memory,
>
The researchers still need to be paid but it's implimentation would
require minimal changes. Thanks for the information. I suspect bamboo
will eventually replace timber anyway but it would also depend on
climate and soil type. Does bamboo form more plantstones?
Androcles
Nah, the great wall is a far better idiocy.
tad...@comcast.net
> On May 2, 8:58 am, "tadc...@comcast.net" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 12:33 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
>
> > ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> > > = I imagine the positive feedback would only kick in when areas, or depths,
> > > or frost not normally being thawed are effected.
>
> > The positive feedback referred to in the IPCC "models" is present at
> > all times, involving only IR energy, atmospheric CO2, temperature, and
> > water vapor. The fantasy is that a small increase in CO2 increases
> > the temperature a little bit, ehich raises the humidity, which makes
> > the atmosphere more efficient at absorbing IR, resulting in a sort of
> > synergism that magnoifies the "climate sensitivity" so that the
> > atmosphere warms about 2.5 times as much as it would from the CO2
> > increase alone.
>
> > The reality is that there are a myriad of other factors not accounted
> > for. The atmosphere is a complex system and we are not even sure
> > *what* all the variables are, let alone how to account for their
> > innate variations or all the millions of possible interactions.
>
> > We *can* point out that the earth is still here and habitable, so the
> > scenario of "runaway" global warming (to use Al Gore's term) has not
> > occurred.
>
> As I pointed out in the post to which you have not replied, you
> obviously don't understand systems---or you are purposely creating a
> strawman.
I understand systems, perhaps more so than any of the programmers
whocontrived the IPCCs "models."
You apparently do not know the difference between a "strawman" and an
"example." The example of alleged "positive feedback (meklting
permafrost) was not even my selection; it was YOURS.
I am simply trying to drive home the fact that in any system, if
positive feedback dominates any aspect of a system state then that
state is inherently unstable. The system will change from that state
at the slightest perturbation, never to return.
> > Had it been possible, it would have occurred by now because
> > mankind has not added any significant *new* variables or
> > interactions.
>
> That's just silly. We have obviously added a major new variable, which
> is that we are burning fossil fuels.
CO2 is an old variable. There is no way one can distinguish CO2 from
fossil fuels apart from CO2 from any other source, anthropogenic or
natural. We have only seen an increase in its concentration. In our
vanity we ASSUME that 100% of that increase is due to our own
efforts. This is almost certainly incorrect.
Ice cores have consistently shown that increases in atmospheric CO2
*follow* warming by about 800 years. This is because the oceans are a
huge reservoir for CO2. As they warm up, their ability to hold
dissolved CO2 is reduced (Henry's Law). Because the oceans are not
well mixed, it takes a lot of time for the CO2 partitioning between
air and sea water to equilibrate. That is the origin of the 800 year
lag.
The atmosphere is more well mixed. It takes about 6 months for CO2
introduced into the atmosphere in one hemisphere to become equally
distributed throughout the whole atmosphere, as demonstrated with
measurements of radioactive carbon introduced into the air by
atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950's.
Since most people and major industry is in the northern hemisphere, it
would be reasonable to expect that anthropogenic CO2, introduced into
the air largely in the northern hemisphere, would raise the northern
hemisphere CO@ levels before the southern hemisphere levels. The
radiocarbon data from the nuclear tests indicates there should be
about a six-month lag.
Northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere CO2 levels are identical,
and rise at the same rate. The conclusion is that the CO2 is NOT
being introduced preferentially into the air in one hemisphere, more
so than the other. Either the relatively unpopulated southern
hemisphere is dumping just as much CO2 into the air as its highly
populated northern partner, and has been for a long time, or the CO2
is coming from equatorial and/or tropical sources having little to do
with human activity.
What we are seeing in the CO2 data certainly is not consistent with
anthropogenic activity as the sole source of the CO2 increase.
> You don't think that taking
> hydrocarbons out of the ground and putting them into the atmosphere is
> a new interaction, given that the natural process has been *dominated*
> by exactly the opposite for hundreds of millions of years?
The interaction is not new. The DEGREE to which it is going on has
cimply changed. Earlier in earth's history CO2 came from comets and
from chondritic meteors, where the heat of atmospheric entry and
impact released CO2 from the carbonates.
Meanwhile carbon dioxide was being sequestered in carbonate minerals
by biological processes and by 'scrubbing' of the air by rain and by
alkaline solutions such as sea and lake water. Processes change over
time. "Balance" changes with time. Corals, for example, evolved and
thrived in the Ordovician age, when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were
over ten times higher than they are now.
Now they certainly could not have done that if the temperatures were
as high as the IPCC's models suggest they would have been, based on
CO2 levels of 4000 ppm. In fact the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2
levels may be the lowest the earth has ever seen, and the shortage of
CO2 for photosynthesis represents one of the strongest lon-term
challenges botanical life (and the zoological life that feeds on
plants) may have ever faced. It would behoove us to carbonate our
atmosphere as much as possible to stimulate agricultural productivity,
increase biomass and biodiversity, and liberate the most valuable
resource known to carbon-based life.
The earth's climate has never been a fixed system. It also has never
changed enough to eradicate all life. Life adapts to survive.
Thinking must also adapt.
We are not doomed, but those who choose to believe we are doomed may
be dooming themselves.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Mike
Well said Tom, although I don't quite agree with carbonating our
atmosphere there is much that science doesn't have the answers for.
But inevitably life learns and adapts or it dies.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Again, you are simply wrong. Since you didn't answer my points in the
other post, I assume that you really don't know what you are talking
about.
The state of a metastable complex *system* *may or may not* be
dependent on the variation in some *component* (your "aspect") of that
system. You can drive some component to its maximum value, whether
through positive feedback *or by any other means*, and the system
state *does not necessarily change*.
If you disagree with this or my previous statements about systems,
feel free to actually respond to them.
As for historical levels of CO2, or historical temperatures, who
cares? It isn't the same system! Continents have moved, major changes
in atmospheric and oceanic circulation have occurred, and so on and
on, at scales and over times that are completely useless in analyzing
our current circumstance. If the mean temp went up even 10deg C over
the next 10,000 years, it wouldn't much matter, since we could
probably slowly adapt. The question at hand is whether there will be
major disruptions in human populations on normal human time scales of
decades and centuries.
-tg
Strange Creature
> On Apr 29, 5:48 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Mike wrote:
>
> > > I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> > > CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> > > decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> > > atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> > > technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> > > improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> > > sequestration?
>
>
> I like it but the housing market is shot to hell and they will also
> decompose in short geologic time, charcoal would be more stable. I
> suppose my question is at what rate could CO2 be removed using both
> technologies.
Paint the houses. Then lower the price of housing.
A painted house will last longer than a rotting log.
Mike
wrote:
Yes, a well built and well maintained house can last over a century
however lowering the price of housing seems to have started this
economic meltdown. But I sure do hate to see those log rotting.
Strange Creature
Not only that, but if the wood house is built in a
place where nothing would grow to begin with,
then there is there is more carbon sequestration,
because it is not even interfering with the growth
of new trees. The transport of food or other
materials to the house however might produce
a greater carbon output, however.
If you have an area that is filled with agricultural
land, then a lot of the plant material is re-released
each year, as consumed food or other carbon
product materials. If you have an area that is filled
with forest, however, you have to estimate whether
more carbon is being sequestered in an area
filled with saplings or with large trees.
Other factors to consider are sprinkler systems
in deserts. If you have plants being grown in
places they would not normally grow, there is
somewhat of a carbon output from the energy
required to transport the water there, or pump
it from the ground. At the same time, however,
there is a level of sequestration in the irrigated
plants that would not occur if there was no
water in that area.
If you recycle paper or plastic also, it ends
up being not a carbon dioxide source. If
it is burned, then it becomes one. The initial
plant material that produced it, if it came
from plant material, was a sink. If it came
from fossil fuels, it has the potential for
being a source, but only when it actually
is burned or is made to decompose. Until
that time however, it was not generated by
a sink, but it still remains, not a source.
This might seem trivial, and it might possibly
be, at least somewhat. However, human
civilization is large enough that it is not
altogether certain that it might not be a factor.
qqq_qqq
> I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> sequestration?
Perhaps one of the following is interesting for you:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2620-carbon-dioxide-turned-into-hydrocarbon-fuel.html
http://www.popsci.com/molika-ashford/article/2008-10/better-co2-scrubber
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm
Q
--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.
Santim Vah
> hanson wrote:
>
> Santim, you have posted some very interesting stuff, wherein
> the operative sentence says:
> ::SV:: Farmers here, in NSW, AU, as part of carbon trading
> ::SV:: system debates had asked for agri credits, but have
> ::SV:: been excluded from the system.
>
> So much for the real intent of the Green Schitz. You the hard
> working, well meaning worker must take all the risks & carry
> all the burden, while the administrators of the Carbon trading
> scam fatten their own wallets. The Green movement is more
> corrupt than their cousins, the Browns and the Reds, ever were.
> This C-trading scheme was tried in California in the early 90's.
> A wholes slews of these CT-administrators are still in jail after
> stealing for personal use 100's of $ millions out of the system.
> ----- There is nothing more filthy then an environmentalist! -------
>
> ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Um, not sure if you noticed, but *I* never said I agreed with a carbon
trading scheme, and for the record I do not, and partly for the
reasons you mention above, for imho it is a GIANT scam for "investors"
and a COP-OUT by the Government pretending that they are doing
something constructive, when they are NOT.
The info I posted was about yet another classic example of the
manifold solutions available to "improve" the overall situation ....
the context of farmers being excluded from a ETS carbion trading
regime was IRRELEVANT, and not the point at all of my post.
So, feel free to relax.
cheers sean
Santim Vah
> >http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2176108.htm
>
> > blah blah blah ...... so many things can solve the CO2 issue, it's not
> > hard to do .... it's just a "choice" and continued research and
> > ACTION.
>
> > Lot's of little simple things done everywhere and everyday ... and
> > bingo ...
>
> The researchers still need to be paid but it's implimentation would
> require minimal changes. Thanks for the information. I suspect bamboo
> will eventually replace timber anyway but it would also depend on
> climate and soil type. Does bamboo form more plantstones?
Hi, I don;t know exactly, but my memory of other stuff I saw on TV
recently was that the sugar cane [ and other large grasses too ] were
*claimed* to transfer more carbon into the ground than any other
plant, so I assume bamboo wasn't as good .... you'd have to check that
out.
But IMO this is another one of many things that are "out there" quite
capable when all are utilized to to achieve the goals of managing the
environment better, reducing GHG build ups in the atmoshpere and
oceans, reducing energy cost in REAL TERMS into the future, and
reducing overall pollution etc etc.
hanson
>
> hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/8848fd25ea6f0964
> Santim, you have posted some very interesting stuff, wherein
> the operative sentence says:
> ::SV:: Farmers here, in NSW, AU, as part of carbon trading
> ::SV:: system debates had asked for agri credits, but have
> ::SV:: been excluded from the system.
>
> So much for the real intent of the Green Schitz. You the hard
> working, well meaning worker must take all the risks & carry
> all the burden, while the administrators of the Carbon trading
> scam fatten their own wallets. The Green movement is more
> corrupt than their cousins, the Browns and the Reds, ever were.
> This C-trading scheme was tried in California in the early 90's.
> A wholes slews of these CT-administrators are still in jail after
> stealing for personal use 100's of $ millions out of the system.
> ----- There is nothing more filthy then an environmentalist! -------
> ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Um, not sure if you noticed, but *I* never said I agreed with a carbon
trading scheme, and for the record I do not, and partly for the
reasons you mention above, for imho it is a GIANT scam for "investors"
and a COP-OUT by the Government pretending that they are doing
something constructive, when they are NOT.
>
The info I posted was about yet another classic example of the
manifold solutions available to "improve" the overall situation ....
the context of farmers being excluded from a ETS carbion trading
regime was IRRELEVANT, and not the point at all of my post.
>
So, feel free to relax. cheers sean
>
.... ahahahahaha... your clarification is noted and I delight that you
agree that "There is nothing more filthy then an environmentalist!"
>
And here is the back-drop, the philosophy and the Green Bible of
the Enviros, a movement that has been more criminal then its
parental ideologies, the Communists and the Nazis:
http://tinyurl.com/6rqe22
>
------------------------ http://tinyurl.com/6rqe22 -------------------
Be vigilant, do not relax..... ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Mike
> On May 3, 2:47 am, Mike <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2176108.htm
>
> > > blah blah blah ...... so many things can solve the CO2 issue, it's not
> > > hard to do .... it's just a "choice" and continued research and
> > > ACTION.
>
> > > Lot's of little simple things done everywhere and everyday ... and
> > > bingo ...
>
> > The researchers still need to be paid but it's implimentation would
> > require minimal changes. Thanks for the information. I suspect bamboo
> > will eventually replace timber anyway but it would also depend on
> > climate and soil type. Does bamboo form more plantstones?
>
> Hi, I don;t know exactly, but my memory of other stuff I saw on TV
> recently was that the sugar cane [ and other large grasses too ] were
> *claimed* to transfer more carbon into the ground than any other
> plant, so I assume bamboo wasn't as good .... you'd have to check that
> out.
I thought bamboo would qualify as a large grass.
> But IMO this is another one of many things that are "out there" quite
> capable when all are utilized to to achieve the goals of managing the
> environment better, reducing GHG build ups in the atmoshpere and
> oceans, reducing energy cost in REAL TERMS into the future, and
> reducing overall pollution etc etc.
But there is still a lot of disagreement about what those goals are,
thier priority, how they can be implemented, and who is going to pay
for it.
Santim Vah
Never said that either ... sheesh, try a blue jelly bean and chill
out. :-)
Santim Vah
> On May 3, 6:59 am, Santim Vah <santim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 2:47 am, Mike <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2176108.htm
>
> > > > blah blah blah ...... so many things can solve the CO2 issue, it's not
> > > > hard to do .... it's just a "choice" and continued research and
> > > > ACTION.
>
> > > > Lot's of little simple things done everywhere and everyday ... and
> > > > bingo ...
>
> > > The researchers still need to be paid but it's implimentation would
> > > require minimal changes. Thanks for the information. I suspect bamboo
> > > will eventually replace timber anyway but it would also depend on
> > > climate and soil type. Does bamboo form more plantstones?
>
> > Hi, I don;t know exactly, but my memory of other stuff I saw on TV
> > recently was that the sugar cane [ and other large grasses too ] were
> > *claimed* to transfer more carbon into the ground than any other
> > plant, so I assume bamboo wasn't as good .... you'd have to check that
> > out.
>
> I thought bamboo would qualify as a large grass.
>
Yes bamboo is a large grass, I just don;t know if it does the carbon
into the ground to the same degree or at all , as was claimed about
the specific type of sugar cane ... you'd need to check it yourself if
interested.
> > But IMO this is another one of many things that are "out there" quite
> > capable when all are utilized to to achieve the goals of managing the
> > environment better, reducing GHG build ups in the atmoshpere and
> > oceans, reducing energy cost in REAL TERMS into the future, and
> > reducing overall pollution etc etc.
>
> But there is still a lot of disagreement about what those goals are,
> thier priority, how they can be implemented, and who is going to pay
> for it.
the same people who pay for all the aspects of energy and land use
now ... there's always an assumption running that it is more costly,
I'm not so sure. there are things called economies of scale that are
well known ... and if the US govt didn't subsidise highway
construction, and oil supplies [ including security oforeign suppliers
at no cost to the Oil companies or the guy at the gas pump ] and all
the technology advances in the 50's and ongoing then would the oil and
the cars and the overall cost of trasnport have been as relatively
cheap as it was ???
these underlying and one step removed "economies" and their costs
don't actually always end up in the per unit price the consumer pays,
be it Oil, electrical power, and lots of other associated aspects.
cheers
hanson
out. :-)
>
AHAHAHAHA... never mind your jelly bean, but I never said that
"you said"... ahahaha... However your "sheesh" implies that you
do NOT agree with me that "There is nothing more filthy then
an environmentalist!"... ahahahaha... So, do you imply then that
you are one of them, a class 3 enviro?... you being an unpaid
facilitator and enabler for the filthy ones? ... AHAHAHAHAHA...
Read the link below & check for the definition of what a class 3
envrio is... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
hanson, in a previous post, wrote:
And here is the back-drop, the philosophy and the Green Bible
of the Enviros, a movement that has been more criminal then its
JimboCat
> On Apr 29, 8:48 pm, kevirwin <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 8:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "Mike" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7054c514-50ca-4744...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > I like Dyson's idea of genetically engineering trees to absorb more
> > > > CO2 but came across a post reminding me that the trees die and
> > > > decompose or are burned releasing most of the CO2 back into the
> > > > atmosphere. Then I found a company called Eprida that is developing
> > > > technology to convert biomass into charcoal which can be used to
> > > > improve soil fertility. Is this a plausable method of carbon
> > > > sequestration?
>
>
> > That was actually funny.....clever use of vowels....don't have a clue
> > about the topic, however...
>
> > you might have expounded on the reason for the "implausibility"
>
> > oh no ... a cross-post....oh,well...
>
> > K e v
>
> Converting biomass to charcoal requires heat, which requires a lot of
> cheap energy, which currently requires burning cfossil fuels.
Not quite. Converting biomass to charcoal requires heat in the (near)
absence of oxygen. It is usually done by heaping up the biomass into a
big pile, covering it with something (mud works well) and leaving just
enough in the way of vents to allow enough oxygen to enter to maintain
a slow combustion.
At the end of the process, most of the carbohydrates (e.g. cellulose)
have been converted to carbon, losing the hydrogen and oxygen they
once contained. Most of the carbon remains as charcoal.
Lots of polluting smoke is given off.
It's not a wonderfully "green" process, but it does NOT contribute
large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Confound these ancestors ... they've stolen our best ideas!" [Ben
Johnson (1572-1637)]
Santim Vah
> Be vigilant, do not relax..... ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
While there is some truth to that senario about Class 1, 2 & 3
Enviros, as there is also truth to the deniers senario, and then there
are others in neither camp that probably hold more of the truth than
anyone else. The people, the masses, those who respond to polls and
most who post to newsgroup have no idea one way or the other who is
telling the truth, who is getting what $ from where, or whether or not
CC is real, or if it is real is it a problem .... but all have an
opinion even those with no opinion or who could care less ... and then
there are others around leaning towards either camp that simply don;t
fit the above groupings.
and then there are other options as well that exist.
and then .... well what will be will be, things have a way of
"happening" no matter what the polls say, or who thinks what or when.
The world is a strange place mainly due to the Humans that live
here . ;-))
cheers and thanks for the heads up, I watch it.
Benj
> But there is still a lot of disagreement about what those goals are,
> thier priority, how they can be implemented, and who is going to pay
> for it.
Sorry Mike. But there is NO disagreement as to who is going to pay for
it...